“Human Ethics: Ethical
decisions should be made in the context of real people, real situations, real
human needs and aspirations and the consideration of real consequences.
Humanism combines personal liberty with social responsibility. It affirms the
dignity of every person, the right of the individual to the greatest possible
freedom compatible with the rights of others, and the need for community.
Without this context we risk the worst excesses of ideology.”

The above is Principle (vii) from the HAT
Constitution: Section 3 - Declaration of
Principles. It seems to be the one most pertinent to the discussion of
Medically Assisted Dying (MAD).

Below is a link to the Government’s proposed Bill C-14 “to
amend the criminal code in respect of Medical assistance in Dying” and another
link to the Special Parliamentary Committee’s report. Let’s discuss the
differences between them, whether they are reasonable and how Humanist
principles can help guide our thoughts and feelings:

1.“Advanced directives” were recommended by Committee but are
not part of C-14.

2.MAD for “matures minors” was recommended by Committee but is
not part of C-14.

3.MAD
for mental health conditions was recommended by Committee
but is not part of C-14.

4.A
15 day Period of Reflection is part of C-14, against the recommendations of the
Committee.

5.To
gain the exemption for MAD, the applicant must “have a grievous and
irremediable medical condition” that includes death being “reasonably
foreseeable” according to the opinion of the doctor of nurse practitioner. Is
this a reasonable condition?

6.Is it fair to expect medical practitioners to risk a trial,
up to 5 years in jail and loss of their medical license every time they conduct
a medical procedure because the law is so subjective?